[user3939382]

You could argue by providing those things you’re forcing them into perpetual stimulation. It’s a matter of perspective. The difference is that like sugar, unless we’re using our rationality to override the impulse, we’ll always pick stimulation though that’s not necessarily healthy.

[skrebbel]

I’m a geek. My kids are geeks. To not provide them access to a computer because there’s bad addictive things on computers is like not teaching kids to read because there’s harmful books.

In reality, things are never so black and white. When I tell my kids “no youtube, no gaming, but you’re allowed to use Scratch” there’s a risk they’re just browse scratch’s endless catalog of games made by others, plenty of which are impressively fun. So then I gotta say no to that too. But then my youngest wants to use Scratch with a youtube tutorial. That’s fine right? Well yes it is but it also means there’s the addictive recommendation cycle right there on the screen too. He’s not allowed to click on them but that’s hard to resist etc etc. It’s all solvable but it’s all very nuanced and makers of apps and platforms (including MIT) actively work against you at every step.

My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children. It’s simple in the abstract and super messy in reality.

[martindbp]

> My theory is that every person in this thread who thinks this is simple doesn’t have children.

As always. "Why don't you just..."

Minecraft has been great for my 6 year old, learning fluent English etc, but I have to be very active in enforcing rules, especially around Minecraft YouTubers (only British, they tend to build advanced machinery and explain well).

But anything can turn into an addiction. Recently he wanted to do Duolingo to learn intermediate English, but now I get the sense he does it to get "allowed" screen time and doesn't actually learn much.

It's very nuanced. I want to provide screen time because we're nerds and you need to spend time with technology to learn about it, but there are way more distractions than when I was a kid, and our home computer didn't even have internet.

[strken]

I don't have children. That being said, my impression from looking after my brother's kid is that a lot of things are simple and also difficult. "Sit down with your kids when they use the computer like you're pair programming" is not complicated, but it's a heavy burden that most parents can't meet. Uncle strken can't do that over three days, let alone 15 or so years.

[taneq]

Cue the Penny Arcade strip about screen time.

[svantana]

I mean, it's a bit like saying: "why is cocaine illegal but not glue sniffing? It's even worse for your health". Yes, but it's not as much fun, so in practice not a big problem. If a kid refused to go outside due to their pen-and-paper addiction, then that would need to be limited as well.

[watwut]

Words means things. If I ask you for something again and again, you then provides it for me as a gift for christmas, using the word "forcing" is massively inappropriate.

It is not just a question of perspective. It is quite literally a question of what word means.

[toenail]

And being a parent means you are responsible for somebody. Yeah, maybe you don't "force" them, you just create offers they can't refuse.

[watwut]

Sure. But it has nothing to do with ridiculous argument that "kids are forced them into perpetual stimulation". No they are not forced. They want it and they are either allowed it or not.

[robertlagrant]

> Yeah, maybe you don't "force" them, you just create offers they can't refuse.

Agreed - it's not forcing. Not all things that are bad are forcing.

[mft_]

While I agree with your overall point, it's also worth asking where the desire for a new belonging comes from.

There may be more obvious stimuli like established hobbies, or peer pressure, but ultimately a lot of the desire for a new belonging is likely driven by marketing from the companies selling it.

[watwut]

Kids always wanted to have what other kids have, you do not need special marketing for that. It is just how human psychology works. Likewise, kids always wanted what they seen adults to have (phones).

And kids who have seen marketing to find nintendo or tv fun. If they seen it in their friends house, they found it fun.

[mft_]

> Kids always wanted to have what other kids have, you do not need special marketing for that.

And yet, much money is spent marketing things to children. What a waste this must be!

> Likewise, kids always wanted what they seen adults to have (phones).

While a mobile phone may be a simple and useful (even vital) tool, huge amounts of money is spent on marketing to drive desires for particular brands, or new models/features. This influences adults, and also probably children in turn.

> If they seen it in their friends house, they found it fun.

So where did those kids discover or get the desire for the item? And/or where did their parents get the idea to buy it for them? Why (e.g.) Playstation rather than Nintendo, or vice versa? At some point, it likely tracks back to marketing, creating the desire.

[watwut]

You are being intentionally obtuse. Yes, marketing works, because companies fight among each other who will be the winner.

"The desire for a new belonging" is present in kids who dont see ads nor have access to screens. They see what other kids have, they see what adults have. Kids wanting the same thing as other kids is nothing new or revolutionary.

Trying to pretend that kids wanting things is somehow a change against any time before is absurd.

> Playstation rather than Nintendo, or vice versa? At some point, it likely tracks back to marketing, creating the desire.

Small kids do not know playstation vs nintendo. They still want games. They want same games as their friends have.

[mft_]

"Enabling" is probably a better word than "forcing"?